Moreover, it rules out a new request for a preliminary ruling, as suggested by Banco Santander, the defendant in the case that the Supreme Court has just resolved.
He High Council has made it his own doctrine founded by Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)issued on April 25, and has set the criterion that the limitation period for claiming mortgage paymentswrongly paid by a consumer will be the date of the finality of the judgment declaring the nullity of the clause requiring such payments.
However, the Supreme Court determines that the the start of the term starts on an earlier date if the lender can prove this that the consumer could have been aware of the abuse of this clause within the context of his contractual relations.
The Supreme Court thus takes into account the doctrine that the CJEU included in its ruling April 25 in which he emphasized that the consumer acquires certain knowledge of its irregularity on the date on which the decision establishing the nullity of a term becomes final.
From that date, you will therefore be in a position to effectively assert the rights granted to you by European regulations and the limitation period for the claim for restitution can begin to run, the main purpose of which is to restore the situation in which you were the consumer who would feel if that clause had not existed.
In its ruling of June 14, the Supreme Court indicates that “it is not for it” to make doctrinal considerations on the content of the CJEU’s case law, nor on its implications in the general system of private law of the various Member States . States of the European Union.
In addition, excludes a new request for a preliminary rulingas I suggested Santander bank –that is, the defendant in the case that the Supreme Court just resolved– as the court believes that the CJEU has already clarified the issues raised in the case.
This way it dictates that is based on what the CJEU has resolved. For example, in the appeal examined, the defendant bank did not demonstrate that consumers were aware of this abuse of the costs clause before the finality of the judgment that was annulled, is not of the opinion that the claim for restitution was prescribed.
Source: EITB
I’m Wayne Wickman, a professional journalist and author for Today Times Live. My specialty is covering global news and current events, offering readers a unique perspective on the world’s most pressing issues. I’m passionate about storytelling and helping people stay informed on the goings-on of our planet.
